Joe Stein: Eight thousand pounds isn’t cool. You know what’s cool? Nine thousand pounds.

If you’re a student at LSE, chances are you’re already doing pretty well for yourself. Graduates enjoy some of the best prospects of any UK University.

The sheer ambition of the student body is impressive. Whatever people’s views on the cut-throat atmosphere of the place, it is hard to knock the passion students have for their disciplines – whether they want to be financiers, human rights lawyers or politicians – they’re serious about it.

An LSE degree is enriching in every sense of the word. It is truly something to be valued.

But it is an elite university in more than just its standards. In the past, LSE has had an appalling record on widening participation. It has earned a reputation as a finishing school for the world’s well born.

The situation is improving though. In December 2010, The Sutton Trust praised recent efforts to embrace the lower reaches of society and its low-income bursary scheme is amongst the most generous. Still, just four per cent of LSE’s current British undergraduates received free school meals during their earlier education, an indicator that much more needs to be done.

Giving underprivileged kids access to environments like LSE is vitally important for social mobility. Tuition fees are a progressive measure towards that; and, to an extent, that means the higher the better. Here’s why.

I am a student from a low-income household. I currently pay £3,290 in tuition fees per year, just like everybody else. I qualify for a £2,500 grant from LSE and a £2,906 grant from the government. I then top this up with a maintenance loan of up to £5,475 and a fees loan of £3,290.

Even after factoring in the cost of London-living, this is a very comfortable package.

When I applied, money was the last thing on my mind. In fact, because of my background there was a neat financial incentive for me to strive for a top University place.

This extra money offered to poorer students was only made possible because of a previous rise in tuition fees.

In an email to students on Wednesday, just after the Academic Board voted marginally (67-68) in favour of charging £8,000 per year in tuition fees, LSE’s new director Judith Rees explained the two options on the table:

Option 1: £8,000 Tuition fees. £800 per student, per year, directed towards bursary schemes. Estimated £2,000 yearly award for poorest students.

Option 2: £9,000 tuition fees. £1,500 per student, per year, directed towards bursary schemes. Estimated £4,000 yearly award for poorest students.

Now, imagine I’m seventeen-year-old-me today (Emo fringe and all) looking at the prospect of starting University in 2012. I would have glanced more than fleetingly at the price tag next to each year’s education and genuinely considered whether it was financially viable.

I think in either case, Emo-Joe would still have decided to go for it. I hope he would have.

It is crucial to remember that student debt is not like ordinary debt. It never results in bailiffs knocking on the door or aggressive daily phone calls requesting payment – even if you suddenly find yourself out of work.

The reality of student finance is nothing to get excited or worried about.

If your wealthy parents can afford to pay your tuition upfront, they do that. If you can afford to pay your tuition through decent future earnings, you do that. If you cannot afford to pay now and you cannot afford to pay later, you do not pay for your education. Fair and simple.

It is right that people who do well out of University, like many who study at LSE, should pay back afterwards. As these contributions help increase the incentives for poorer people to access quality higher education and pursue their further ambitions, raising tuition fees is undoubtedly a positive and progressive act.

As long as enough of the money is directed towards bursary schemes, higher fees help make University available to all at the point of entry.

In LSE’s case the correlation between higher fees and higher bursaries is direct.

When the LSE Council meets next month to finalise its decision, they should take the 67-68 vote of the Academic Board as an even split. They should ignore the agitating voice of the Student’s Union, who seem blinded by their political dogmas and point scoring games to the reality of the situation.

Instead, the Council should think about what the higher fees system actually does to make University education – and all it represents – accessible to the least well off.